• About
    • Links to Articles, Academic Papers and Books
  • Market Urbansim Podcast
  • Adam Hengels
  • Stephen Smith
  • Emily Hamilton
  • Jeff Fong
  • Nolan Gray
  • Contact

Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Podcast
  • Economics
  • housing
  • planning
  • Transportation
  • zoning
  • Urban[ism] Legends
  • How to Fight Gentrification

Obama administration pushing dissolution of Fannie and Fredie

February 8, 2011 By Stephen Smith

Big news out of Washington: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which many (including me) think were at the heart of the financial collapse, and currently have some stake in the vast majority of post-crash mortgages – may be getting wound down soon. This NYT is reporting that the Obama administration may be releasing three plans at the end of the week, and the preferred (!) one is to shut down the two lenders entirely.

These lines also stood out to me:

Representative Scott Garrett, the New Jersey Republican who is chairman of the House subcommittee that deals with housing finance, on Monday told a mortgage conference in Florida that the government should leave the mortgage business.

“I believe that, if there is to be any government assistance to homeownership, it should be limited to first-time homebuyers or rental housing,” Mr. Garrett said.

Note that “rental housing” isn’t “homeownership” at all.

Personally I think it’s a good idea to get the government out of encouraging homeownership entirely, on the grounds that homeowners are more likely to be in the perverse position of wanting the cost of housing – a basic expense for everyone – to go up, resulting in pervasive government interventions like anti-density zoning and blowing up the housing bubble. But even beyond this indirect sprawl promotion, they have inherent anti-density biases like their refusal to fund small mixed use projects.

Tweet

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Economics, housing Tagged With: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, mortgages

About Stephen Smith

I graduated Spring 2010 from Georgetown undergrad, with an entirely unrelated and highly regrettable major that might have made a little more sense if I actually wanted to become an international trade lawyer, but which alas seems good for little else.

I still do most of the tweeting for Market Urbanism

Stephen had previously written on urbanism at Forbes.com. Articles Profile; Reason Magazine, and Next City

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Obama administration pushing dissolution of Fannie and Fredie | Market Urbanism -- Topsy.com()

  • Alai

    Hmm. In principle I agree, but in practice aren’t Fannie and Freddie basically responsible for the existence of the 30-year mortgage? This could change the housing landscape very, very dramatically.

  • Owen

    That’s very encouraging. Just a few years ago it was only the most radical free-market Republicans that wanted to close FNMA and FHLMC. Official Washington laughed at them. Now it’s in the mainstream conversation.

    Of course, the risks and crisis we were all warned about had to actually smash the economy to make it happen.

  • The Hermit Crab

    “Home Ownership” is the same thing as “rental housing” if the occupant has no equity. Make them bring cash to the closing.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Obama administration pushing dissolution of Fannie and Fredie | Market Urbanism -- Topsy.com()

  • Anonymous

    Few people realize the role that the cult of homeownership and its government enablers had in the housing collapse.

  • T.Caine

    Well said, Stephen. In addition to its pro-sprawl component, I feel like programs like this are another way our culture tries to confuse people into thinking they can afford more than they can to live excessively beyond their means. Consumer spending = good. Consumer credit = good. The housing bubble helped produce some of the largest and least efficient homes in the country that we are now saddled with. Having more difficulty in obtaining a mortgage could be one way to help diminish the More-is-More mentality in suburban real estate.

  • Anonymous

    While in principle this all sounds nice, in reality, as Alai wrote below, Fannie/Freddie were responsible for the 30-yr mortgage that allowed middle class families to own their homes, and defining what was the “American Dream”. Blaming home ownership on sprawl is like placing the symptom before the disease (blaming the messenger). Or more likely, confusing association for cause and effect.

    While there are economic realities that no longer allow for sprawl and car dependency to continue, I don’t see how this relates to home ownership. Sprawl is largely a design and zoning issue created and sold by developers and the government from the 50’s on. That is, families bought these homes because they were sold this version of American life and because this is what was built for them to buy.

    Appropriate density can be achieved in the suburbs by converting single-family units to 2-level and 3-level housing units, each with its own family and with individual entrances, guarding privacy. Street redesign and public transportation availability can also complete the process of conversion into a walkable, sustainable community. Zoning laws can be rewritten to encourage walkability, proximity to everyday amenities, and mixed use. None of the above has anything to do with ownership type. Multi-family units can be sold to each family individually the same way the single-family unit was/is sold.

    Of course, it is more convenient for banks to give loans to a few wealthy landlords than to individual families. But I personally don’t look forward to the time when the average American family is dependent on earning their livelihood from an unstable global economy, and on wealthy landlords who can throw them out anytime they can’t pay the rent. All of it sounds like it will continue to increase the gap between wealthy owners and the rest.

Market Urbanism Podcast

Connect With Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Recent Posts

  • Mini review: Vanishing New York, by Jeremiah Moss
  • The Distorting Effects of Transportation Subsidies
  • The Rent is Too High and the Commute is Too Long: We Need Market Urbanism
  • The Progressive Roots of Zoning
  • “Curb Rights” at 20: A Summary and Review
  • High Rents: Are Construction Costs the Culprit?
  • Cities Should Not Design for Autonomous Vehicles
  • Does Density Raise Housing Prices?
  • The “Geographically Constrained Cities” Fantasy
  • The Role for State Preemption of Local Zoning
  • Exempting Suburbia: How suburban sprawl gets special treatment in our tax code
  • old posts
My Tweets

Market Sites Urbanists should check out

  • Cafe Hayek
  • Culture of Congestion
  • Environmental and Urban Economics
  • Foundation for Economic Education
  • Let A Thousand Nations Bloom
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Mike Munger | Kids Prefer Cheese
  • Neighborhood Effects
  • New Urbs
  • NYU Stern Urbanization Project
  • Peter Gordon's Blog
  • The Beacon
  • ThinkMarkets

Urbanism Sites capitalists should check out

  • Austin Contrarian
  • City Comforts
  • City Notes | Daniel Kay Hertz
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Emergent Urbanism
  • Granola Shotgun
  • Old Urbanist
  • Pedestrian Observations
  • Planetizen Radar
  • Reinventing Parking
  • streetsblog
  • Strong Towns
  • Systemic Failure
  • The Micro Maker
  • The Urbanophile

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 Market Urbanism

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.